<quoted text>Have you ever lived in Louisiana? I have. When you die in the New Orleans area, they don't bury you. Too much water.

I lived there (West Wego area) long before Katrina came in and like a terlet, she flushed the stinch in all the open ditches where your shower and dish water would run out to with rats as big as cats living in the culverts. Gawd that place stunk to high heaven especially in the summer heat and humidity. The mosquito is the Lousyana state bird and no wonder. As I see now on google earth, looks like they cleaned up a lot of that nastyness. New Orleans looks to be shaping up now, thank gawd for all those poor cajuns that have to live there.

<quoted text>Not directly...Climatedepot is written and put out .. professional paid lobbyist.

Yes. Litesong did mention that you were quoting a website paid for directly or indirectly by energy companies to distort and divert the public perception. You didn't need the long rant as you had made that his point in your first paragraph.

P.S. Do you have any idea what science is?? Where do you think you get it from. Dirty rest-rooms?

<quoted text>Yep, I pay attention. Do some research on the arctic oscillation. It will help you to understand the dynamics of the arctic. And, surprisingly, the same arctic oscillation impacts the mass balance of Europe's glaciers.http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htmThis is interesting if you take some time and compare the arctic to the antarctic, you'll notice the temperatures change in antarctic data before the arctic data.

"John McLean is not a working scientist,nor affiliated with any recognized research organization. Ah yes, here we go, he apparently has described himself as "John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT." and "Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer"

#1 Here is ABC news describing the science journal saying John McLean’s article was trash. The article by McLean and colleagues is a perfect example of the fallible but self-correcting nature of peer reviewed science.Although the authors loudly proclaimed to the media that their work shows that "no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation" and that it "leaves little room for any warming driven by human emissions", these claims have now been shown to be wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst.The Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of Mr McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand.This rebuttal uncovered numerous errors and, most crucially, it unambiguously showed that the paper by McLean and colleagues permitted no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof.>>#2 Here is the scientific journal officially saying your hero John McLean was trash.JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D09110, 4 PP., 2010doi:10.1029/2009JD012960 McLean et al.(2009)(henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly and an even higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperatures,”“and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures.” However, their analysis is inappropriate in a number of ways and overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures and then shows that the analysis of MFC09 greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD0...

Thanks for at least trying... but try someone reputable next time, ok?

<quoted text>No.Look it up. The heat of the 1950s was just as hot as it was in 2012 in the areas that were impacted by the drought. Look up the 1980s. Wasn't around for the 1930s but the same heat and same drought impacted all four time periods.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_...

If you read ANY science source they talk about severity of droughts over the long term. You completely distort the record. So who is your source -- Limbaugh? Obviously the right wing.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>And in the 1960s, had three feet of standing water in the backyard in a 'suburb' of Asbury Park, NJ from a hurricane. Only in the backyard, not in the house because all the houses were built up on berms. It had flooded before from hurricanes and whoever built the place had decided that it could happen again, it did.Nothing new happened this year. It had all happened before and will happen again.

Actually climatologists don't agree that hurricanes have been much affected by the warming we've had so far. They say these need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The reality is no one can definitely prove with statistics if we have more extreme events TODAY from global warming -- and climatologists have not been agreement on it. Now the statistics do show more extreme events, just not at the high confidence level that would pronounce it highly certain.

Now, it is a fact that higher temperature means more heat energy moved around in the atmospheric process.

But, here is Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate.org : "Hurricanes intensity ,,, is not driven by temperature gradients. Nor are droughts. More generally, it underlies the point that all extremes are different and that attribution of changes in extremes needs to proceed on a case by case basis," although he goes on later to say the jury is out on an indirect influence:

"The main reason for meteorological drought is the diversion of "normal" weather systems by jet streams, which of course are driven by temperature gradients.But ,,, there are factors other than increased temperature which could be responsible for these extremes."

There are multiple variables impacting extreme weather events. Warming will increase energy in the system, so will likely be a cause -- either directly or indirectly. But statistically there is no high certainty that would prove this. Most extreme events have a unique number of variables contributing to each one.

And there is DEFINITELY no evidence that warming is not an indirect cause of the increased extreme events we have seen.

Still, reinsurance companies, like Munich Re, are very concerned about the impacts of global warming, and I don't think you can even buy hurricane insurance in some parts of Florida anymore

<quoted text>"John McLean is not a working scientist,nor affiliated with any recognized research organization. Ah yes, here we go, he apparently has described himself as "John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT." and "Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer"#1 Here is ABC news describing the science journal saying John McLean’s article was trash.The article by McLean and colleagues is a perfect example of the fallible but self-correcting nature of peer reviewed science.Although the authors loudly proclaimed to the media that their work shows that "no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation" and that it "leaves little room for any warming driven by human emissions", these claims have now been shown to be wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst.The Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of Mr McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand.This rebuttal uncovered numerous errors and, most crucially, it unambiguously showed that the paper by McLean and colleagues permitted no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof.>>#2 Here is the scientific journal officially saying your hero John McLean was trash.JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D09110, 4 PP., 2010doi:10.1029/2009JD012960McLean et al.(2009)(henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly and an even higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperatures,”“and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures.”However, their analysis is inappropriate in a number of ways and overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures and then shows that the analysis of MFC09 greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD0...Thanks for at least trying... but try someone reputable next time, ok?

Don't you have anything of your own. Cut and paste useless trash talk.

<quoted text>Yes. Litesong did mention that you were quoting a website paid for directly or indirectly by energy companies to distort and divert the public perception. You didn't need the long rant as you had made that his point in your first paragraph.P.S. Do you have any idea what science is?? Where do you think you get it from. Dirty rest-rooms?

I find your post interesting. There is no doubt the recent events at the poles are alarming. I'm not fully convinced that man has been the "bad guy" in any global warming period. Subsidence is a far more serious matter in coastal Louisiana. That issue can be traced directly to man. The energy companies in particular. With the hundreds of miles of canals that allow for salt water intrusion, the marshes are dying a slow death. With the destruction of the grasses come the loss of land by subsidence and erosion. The simple fact is the sheer volume of hydrocarbons that have been removed from the ground over the decades has caused significant subsidence in a place where inches mean the difference between land and sea. With the advent of global warming and the resulting sea rise Louisiana will be affected dramatically!! That alone will affect the rest of the nation dramatically.

If you are going back to the Dust Bowl there were other causes to the drought than the heat, especially the poor agricultural practices that led to poor top soil that blew away when there were less rains.

I like the DustBowl , the dirty 30s, the giant dust storms sweeping across the nation.What that era of US history shows us is 2 very very important things that would both be very handy today.1. IT showed us that Human activity can definately affect the world's climate.2. It shows us that the government can actually do something to reverse such effects.The dust bowl was caused by plowing up the land f the great plains and killing off all the natural grass lands. NOt with giant combines and huge farming conglomerates,But with primitive tools. Horse drawn plows, small tractors, and family owned plots of land. These farmers created a climatic condition is 4 states that impacted the entire continent.THe government was looking fo answers and when some senator or whatever was giving a speech to promote his new farming bill, he timed it just right so a giant dust storm from the mid west, covered DC is darkness and dust, and the bill was passed and the Soil and conservation board was born.What happened next was the government armed with, beleive it or not science, followed a plan and the drought was gone in 5 years, and the great plains could once again be used for profitable farming.Right there is Actually undeniable proof that:1 man can definately change the climate2 governement can actually fix such changes

But in our modern age of polarized politics, no Global climate change denier will ever just admit they are wrong, and our government will most likely not come together to fixthis for real problem we face now.

So I ask you.....If 10,000 farmers can destroy the eco systems of 4 states and put much of the north american continent in a drought,can 70 billion people all over the planet burning 10 gallons of fossil fuels a day cause our climate to get warmer?Seems likely to me.

<quoted text>Yep, I pay attention. Do some research on the arctic oscillation. It will help you to understand the dynamics of the arctic. And, surprisingly, the same arctic oscillation impacts the mass balance of Europe's glaciers.http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htmThis is interesting if you take some time and compare the arctic to the antarctic, you'll notice the temperatures change in antarctic data before the arctic data.

Here is the scientific journal officially saying your hero John McLean was trash.JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D09110, 4 PP., 2010doi:10.1029/2009JD012960 McLean et al.(2009)(henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly and an even higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperatures,”“and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures.”

However, their analysis is inappropriate in a number of ways and overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures and then shows that the analysis of MFC09 greatly overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD0...

What's this you say I should do my own research, while you rely on very sloppy research!

[QUOTE who="Walloped10"comm ander troll]<quoted text>Hey, You could have beat me to it... LOL.I'm still pretty new around here...Have a few years on another forum. The skeptics ran off so was looking for a new home.[/QUOTE]Find another home commander troll your useless scientific science fiction not wanted here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.